Lawyers for Nick Sandmann File 250 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Washington Post

[Pogo]

The article is behind a paywall.

LOLOLOL

Which means you can’t prove a word in the lawsuit.

Wrong, but I'm not giving a dime to the Washington Post. You can't disprove a word in the lawsuit. I'll leave it to L. Lin Wood to prove his case.

LOLOL

I don’t have to disprove shit. The burden of proof falls upon the accuser.

That's absolutely true. But Bezos is going to be deposed in the matter, and if he has any hatred at all against Southerners, Catholics or his President, its going to come out. The motive for this libel will be probed extensively, and jurors in Kenton County aren't going to be that merciful IMHO with some liberal doofus taking and sending dick pics all over the place.

They have abused the libel protection from Sullivan versus NY Times and extended it into license to lie. This is good to cause a revisit of that decision.

Jo

This must be some kind of arcane decoder-ring secret but in order to prove "libel" you have to actually provide EVIDENCE OF IT.

That's why a full month ago I challenged anyone on this board that was being led by the nose by McConnell's propaganda machine to demonstrate, right here, any such evidence in print. A quote, a link, a screenshot, whatever. And no one ever has.

I submit to you that it's impossible to make a case that someone has been defamed in the public mind, when even a public full of frothing-at-the-mouth partisan puppets can't come up with a single example in an entire month. No, I'm afraid myths and implications that nobody knows where they came from, aren't admissible as evidence.

This latest action spells out seven specific WaPo articles that it CLAIMS demonstrate such defamation, yet when it proceeds to quote those examples ------------------ not a single one of them does so. Zero. Nothing but eyewitness quotes. You can't argue against quotes. Those are factual. "Philips said (X)." "Photojournalist said (Y)". Those are called facts. They DID say those things.

And NO, Jeff Bezos isn't going to be "deposed" --- Jeff Bezos doesn't write newspaper stories nor is he the Editor. Nor is there anything to explain anyway, as just noted above, because there's no evidence in the complaint.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find anywhere in these cited samples that actually IS a defamation. Quote it here.

Cue crickets.

Y'all have to get it through your heads that not only can anybody make up a lawsuit against anybody for anything (just ask Rump), the purpose for doing so ISN'T always what it says on the lead sheet. It can be and way too often is, a harassment tactic to force another party into legal fees for defense, or to forestall one's own obligations such as not paying workers (again, just ask Rump) or in this case a mass propaganda device for the somnabulistic zombies who think they just "won" something ---- yet can't point to what it is.

 

[Pogo]

I saw a rude, intrusive asshole pounding a drum and shouting incomprehensive noise in the face of a child.

the Briebart article in the 2nd post above, or there about...stated that a group of black Hebrews was shouting and interrupting both the Native American and Catholic school kids/right to life protests, and the Native guy walked over to the right to life group to join them, to stand up to the group of Black Hebrews....?? Or something like that????

I didn't really follow the story and probably should not even be posting on this thread, for my lack of thorough knowledge of the incident. I saw a smirk-ish look on the kid's face, but this comes from my brain's interpretation, not from what the press, or other's have said...

in general, these types of stories and arguments are truly a waste of time, and meant to divide us on trivial, meaningless things....

i'm moving on... ya'll carry on!

"Black Israelites" I believe is what they call themselves, a notorious troll group. But they have nothing to do with the Smirk --- that's just a shiny object the Mitch McConnell PR firm has been pointing at to attempt to distract attention FROM the Smirk. They are irrelevant.

The Black Congressional Israelites are an important part of the mix. They were the ones who actually started giving the children shit, and it was the Phony Veteran Nate Phillips who decided to get in on the fun by beating his drum in Mr. Sandmann's face.

And HOW EXACTLY does that produce The Smirk.



Exactly.

Idiots are smirked at. Sandmann was smirking at the Indian for very much the same reason I am smirking as I address you.

Yeah I know about that. It's the sign of a weak intellect that has no argument so it just smirks. Basically it's playing the part of Arnold Horshack going "oh yeah? well up your hole with a Mello Roll".

 

[Pogo]

I didn't see a smirk. I saw a determined indian pounding a drum in the face of a teenager.

I saw a rude, intrusive asshole pounding a drum and shouting incomprehensive noise in the face of a child.

the Briebart article in the 2nd post above, or there about...stated that a group of black Hebrews was shouting and interrupting both the Native American and Catholic school kids/right to life protests, and the Native guy walked over to the right to life group to join them, to stand up to the group of Black Hebrews....?? Or something like that????

I didn't really follow the story and probably should not even be posting on this thread, for my lack of thorough knowledge of the incident. I saw a smirk-ish look on the kid's face, but this comes from my brain's interpretation, not from what the press, or other's have said...

in general, these types of stories and arguments are truly a waste of time, and meant to divide us on trivial, meaningless things....

i'm moving on... ya'll carry on!

"Black Israelites" I believe is what they call themselves, a notorious troll group. But they have nothing to do with the Smirk --- that's just a shiny object the Mitch McConnell PR firm has been pointing at to attempt to distract attention FROM the Smirk. They are irrelevant.

The Black Congressional Israelites are an important part of the mix. They were the ones who actually started giving the children shit, and it was the Phony Veteran Nate Phillips who decided to get in on the fun by beating his drum in Mr. Sandmann's face.

Phillips and the Black Israelites are going to be sued too by Sandmann.

----------------------- for?

Perhaps you haven't heard the news from the 18th century yet. Look up "First Amendment".

 

[bripat9643]

LOLOLOL

Which means you can’t prove a word in the lawsuit.

Wrong, but I'm not giving a dime to the Washington Post. You can't disprove a word in the lawsuit. I'll leave it to L. Lin Wood to prove his case.

LOLOL

I don’t have to disprove shit. The burden of proof falls upon the accuser.

That's absolutely true. But Bezos is going to be deposed in the matter, and if he has any hatred at all against Southerners, Catholics or his President, its going to come out. The motive for this libel will be probed extensively, and jurors in Kenton County aren't going to be that merciful IMHO with some liberal doofus taking and sending dick pics all over the place.

They have abused the libel protection from Sullivan versus NY Times and extended it into license to lie. This is good to cause a revisit of that decision.

Jo

This must be some kind of arcane decoder-ring secret but in order to prove "libel" you have to actually provide EVIDENCE OF IT.

That's why a full month ago I challenged anyone on this board that was being led by the nose by McConnell's propaganda machine to demonstrate, right here, any such evidence in print. A quote, a link, a screenshot, whatever. And no one ever has.

I submit to you that it's impossible to make a case that someone has been defamed in the public mind, when even a public full of frothing-at-the-mouth partisan puppets can't come up with a single example in an entire month. No, I'm afraid myths and implications that nobody knows where they came from, aren't admissible as evidence.

This latest action spells out seven specific WaPo articles that it CLAIMS demonstrate such defamation, yet when it proceeds to quote those examples ------------------ not a single one of them does so. Zero. Nothing but eyewitness quotes. You can't argue against quotes. Those are factual. "Philips said (X)." "Photojournalist said (Y)". Those are called facts. They DID say those things.

And NO, Jeff Bezos isn't going to be "deposed" --- Jeff Bezos doesn't write newspaper stories nor is he the Editor. Nor is there anything to explain anyway, as just noted above, because there's no evidence in the complaint.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find anywhere in these cited samples that actually IS a defamation. Quote it here.

Cue crickets.

Y'all have to get it through your heads that not only can anybody make up a lawsuit against anybody for anything (just ask Rump), the purpose for doing so ISN'T always what it says on the lead sheet. It can be and way too often is, a harassment tactic to force another party into legal fees for defense, or to forestall one's own obligations such as not paying workers (again, just ask Rump) or in this case a mass propaganda device for the somnabulistic zombies who think they just "won" something ---- yet can't point to what it is.

WAPO articles are behind a pay wall, so we can't evaluate your claims.

 

[pismoe]

related news and info about an hour old and concerning the TRUMP and good guy Nick Sandman as you 'lawyers' argues back and forth . --- Trump cheers Covington student's lawsuit against Washington Post: 'Go get them Nick' --- where are the 'canookian' lawyers eh ??

 

[Pogo]

Neither article explains what exactly they are suing the WPost for??? What did the post say that they knew was a lie at the time they reported it? And how has this really hurt the kid with the smirk? Seems like his lawyers want this kid to continue to be in the lime light.... surprised his parents went with this suit that seems to have no grounds or merit for a defamation suit and continues with their son being in the spotlight, with what the kid regrets and wishes he would have walked away from, as was stated in the article??

Me thinks his lawyers are ambulance chasers, or Michael Avenati-ish.

The link to the legal action in the earliest thread spells out seven WaPo articles that the suit claims publish or republish false and defamatory claims about Smirk-Boi "assaulting" Philips, "engaging in racist conduct", "instigating" stuff, and the like, and in each case it quotes from each of the articles cited. Yet in every case (I read them all) no such claim exists. They're mostly quotes from bystanders, from Philips, from a nearby photojournalist covering the Native American ceremony, etc. There's not a single instance of the WaPo making any of those claims at all.

These attorneys are apparently willing to look incompetent for money.

You're totally full of shit. i could post all the defamatory shit the Post published, but that would take up far too much space.

All you need is ONE, Fingerfuck. And you don't have it. The challenge has been out there a FULL MONTH and you remain emptyhanded. Your whining about "waaah, I don't have room to post it" is abjectly full of shit. Put up or shut up.

NOR is it anywhere in the rest of this post:

I urge forum members to go read the lawsuit for themselves. The Post is in big trouble. I predict they will settle for at least $50 million.

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”

With no investigation into the @2020fight account, the Post actively, negligently, and recklessly participated in making the 2020fight Video go viral on social media when on January 19 at 9:21 a.m., Post reporter Joe Heim re-posted the 2020fight Video.

THE POST COVERAGE

1. The Post rushed to lead the mainstream media to assassinate Nicholas’ character and bully him, publishing their first article no later than 1:37 p.m. January 19. This story was not “hot” or “breaking news.” To the extent the Post performed any investigation at all into what occurred, its unreasonable investigation did not take long, and contrary information did not stop it from publishing its first story in its Sunday newspaper the next day. One of the reporters on the story first retweeted the video approximately four hours before receiving credit for the Post’s first article. In the intervening time, the Post apparently managed to track down and interview Phillips, write a story, and fan the flames of the social media mob into a mainstream media frenzy of false attacks and threats against Nicholas.
2. In the Post’s own words – albeit a far cry from the true scope of the false and defamatory accusations it made against Nicholas – the readers of the Post’s coverage were “licensed to conclude that the students saw [Phillips] from afar, targeted him and advanced.” Of course, the Post’s readers were also licensed to falsely conclude that Nicholas physically and verbally assaulted Phillips while blocking his egress from a mob of students who were similarly engaged in racist conduct.
3. The Post, whose coverage emphasized that Nicholas was wearing a “MAGA” hat, contributed to the rampant cyber-assault and cyber-bullying suffered by Nicholas in the aftermath of its initial reporting which was also undertaken in mass by the mob of other bullies made up of other members of the mainstream media, individuals tweeting on Twitter, church officials, celebrities, and politicians.
4. Even the Twitter platform itself jumped into the bully pulpit and was influenced by early media coverage of the Post, as demonstrated when its “moment” feature falsely accused Nicholas and his classmates of “mocking” Phillips. According to reports, a Twitter spokesperson stated “Twitter Curation strives to fairly and accurately contextualize the nature of large conversations on the platform … The original Covington video appeared on Friday night. However, the Curation team did not compile a Moment until additional news media reporting emerged to provide context to the video – this included a source video interview with Nathan Phillips, which was featured in the Moment.”

WHERE IS IT in there. QUOTE it.

Oh and why don't you essplain to the class how a newspaper, or any source is responsible for what its readers may "conclude"? With all the bullshit conclusion posts you make like a political convention on trolley tracks in December, you'd be in jail for life.

I ALREADY read all this, and more, before I threw down that gauntlet. That's why I don't bother appending a question mark after a sentence I already KNOW has no answer.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Oh how I'd love to see the MSM pay through the nose for this.

 

[Pogo]

Wrong, but I'm not giving a dime to the Washington Post. You can't disprove a word in the lawsuit. I'll leave it to L. Lin Wood to prove his case.

LOLOL

I don’t have to disprove shit. The burden of proof falls upon the accuser.

That's absolutely true. But Bezos is going to be deposed in the matter, and if he has any hatred at all against Southerners, Catholics or his President, its going to come out. The motive for this libel will be probed extensively, and jurors in Kenton County aren't going to be that merciful IMHO with some liberal doofus taking and sending dick pics all over the place.

They have abused the libel protection from Sullivan versus NY Times and extended it into license to lie. This is good to cause a revisit of that decision.

Jo

This must be some kind of arcane decoder-ring secret but in order to prove "libel" you have to actually provide EVIDENCE OF IT.

That's why a full month ago I challenged anyone on this board that was being led by the nose by McConnell's propaganda machine to demonstrate, right here, any such evidence in print. A quote, a link, a screenshot, whatever. And no one ever has.

I submit to you that it's impossible to make a case that someone has been defamed in the public mind, when even a public full of frothing-at-the-mouth partisan puppets can't come up with a single example in an entire month. No, I'm afraid myths and implications that nobody knows where they came from, aren't admissible as evidence.

This latest action spells out seven specific WaPo articles that it CLAIMS demonstrate such defamation, yet when it proceeds to quote those examples ------------------ not a single one of them does so. Zero. Nothing but eyewitness quotes. You can't argue against quotes. Those are factual. "Philips said (X)." "Photojournalist said (Y)". Those are called facts. They DID say those things.

And NO, Jeff Bezos isn't going to be "deposed" --- Jeff Bezos doesn't write newspaper stories nor is he the Editor. Nor is there anything to explain anyway, as just noted above, because there's no evidence in the complaint.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find anywhere in these cited samples that actually IS a defamation. Quote it here.

Cue crickets.

Y'all have to get it through your heads that not only can anybody make up a lawsuit against anybody for anything (just ask Rump), the purpose for doing so ISN'T always what it says on the lead sheet. It can be and way too often is, a harassment tactic to force another party into legal fees for defense, or to forestall one's own obligations such as not paying workers (again, just ask Rump) or in this case a mass propaganda device for the somnabulistic zombies who think they just "won" something ---- yet can't point to what it is.

WAPO articles are behind a pay wall, so we can't evaluate your claims.

That's why it's handy that they're QUOTED in the legal suit document. Each one.
Again, I already read them. Nothing there. Again, prove me wrong.

 

[Pogo]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!




Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

How inconvenient that they STILL have no evidence, huh.

I put that challenge out a MONTH ago and never got a response. Not a single one. Zero.
"Apologize for"................................ what?

From your own link:


>> On January 19, 2019, the Post also posted to its Twitter page and published to approximately 13 million followers its First Article with the following false and defamatory captions, all within a span of 14 minutes, and all within the same thread:

• “In an interview with The Post, Omaha Tribe elder Nathan Phillips says he ‘felt like the spirit was talking through me’ as teens jeered and mocked him.”

• “He was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home. ‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial.’”

• “Phillips, who fought in the Vietnam War, says in an interview ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’” <<

Whelp, guess what. That's a newspaper QUOTING Philips. Is the quote inaccurate? The fact is Philips DID make the statements, he WAS singing a NAm song, and the teens DID jeer and mock him --- "tomahawk chops" are right there in the video.

YOUR OWN LINK, Dumbass. Rotsa ruck with egomaniac attorneys getting their names in print by filing frivolous lawsuits for which they have no evidence. This will be laughed out of court, as it should be.

Yeah um....you got no response because it's not worth the effort.

If a high powered law firm is putting out
Time and resources on this....I'm probably going to give them more credence than I do
You.

Jo

That's exactly what they're counting on ---- ignorance. Intellectual sloth from the drones who fall to their knees and genuflect before the almighty "high powered law firm" --- provided of course it confirms your own echo chamber, and if it doesn't they're "hacks" ---- with no clue what that means or what filing a lawsuit means.

Don't trouble yourself then, I already read it. I'm used to wading through legal documents. And it isn't in there. And they're counting on you NOT to read it because you'd find out the same thing. WaPo could at this point file a "Motion to Kiss My Ass", and yes there is a legal precedent for that.

That's why I get no response --- because it doesn't exist. If it did you snowflakes would be screaming it from the rooftops. Well guess what. Nary a scream.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong:

In the Post’s own words – albeit a far cry from the true scope of the false and defamatory accusations it made against Nicholas – the readers of the Post’s coverage were “licensed to conclude that the students saw [Phillips] from afar, targeted him and advanced.” Of course, the Post’s readers were also licensed to falsely conclude that Nicholas physically and verbally assaulted Phillips while blocking his egress from a mob of students who were similarly engaged in racist conduct.​

Fucking moron, quote the post naming Sandmann. Quote the post saying anything libelous about Sandmann where they weren’t quoting someone they were interviewing....

G’head, I’ll wait.............

The article is behind a paywall.

LOLOLOL

Which means you can’t prove a word in the lawsuit.

Wrong, but I'm not giving a dime to the Washington Post. You can't disprove a word in the lawsuit. I'll leave it to L. Lin Wood to prove his case.

LOLOL

I don’t have to disprove shit. The burden of proof falls upon the accuser.

You made a claim, so it's on you to prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

LOLOL

I don’t have to disprove shit. The burden of proof falls upon the accuser.

That's absolutely true. But Bezos is going to be deposed in the matter, and if he has any hatred at all against Southerners, Catholics or his President, its going to come out. The motive for this libel will be probed extensively, and jurors in Kenton County aren't going to be that merciful IMHO with some liberal doofus taking and sending dick pics all over the place.

They have abused the libel protection from Sullivan versus NY Times and extended it into license to lie. This is good to cause a revisit of that decision.

Jo

This must be some kind of arcane decoder-ring secret but in order to prove "libel" you have to actually provide EVIDENCE OF IT.

That's why a full month ago I challenged anyone on this board that was being led by the nose by McConnell's propaganda machine to demonstrate, right here, any such evidence in print. A quote, a link, a screenshot, whatever. And no one ever has.

I submit to you that it's impossible to make a case that someone has been defamed in the public mind, when even a public full of frothing-at-the-mouth partisan puppets can't come up with a single example in an entire month. No, I'm afraid myths and implications that nobody knows where they came from, aren't admissible as evidence.

This latest action spells out seven specific WaPo articles that it CLAIMS demonstrate such defamation, yet when it proceeds to quote those examples ------------------ not a single one of them does so. Zero. Nothing but eyewitness quotes. You can't argue against quotes. Those are factual. "Philips said (X)." "Photojournalist said (Y)". Those are called facts. They DID say those things.

And NO, Jeff Bezos isn't going to be "deposed" --- Jeff Bezos doesn't write newspaper stories nor is he the Editor. Nor is there anything to explain anyway, as just noted above, because there's no evidence in the complaint.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find anywhere in these cited samples that actually IS a defamation. Quote it here.

Cue crickets.

Y'all have to get it through your heads that not only can anybody make up a lawsuit against anybody for anything (just ask Rump), the purpose for doing so ISN'T always what it says on the lead sheet. It can be and way too often is, a harassment tactic to force another party into legal fees for defense, or to forestall one's own obligations such as not paying workers (again, just ask Rump) or in this case a mass propaganda device for the somnabulistic zombies who think they just "won" something ---- yet can't point to what it is.

WAPO articles are behind a pay wall, so we can't evaluate your claims.

That's why it's handy that they're QUOTED in the legal suit document. Each one.
Again, I already read them. Nothing there. Again, prove me wrong.

Then post it.

 

[Pogo]

That's absolutely true. But Bezos is going to be deposed in the matter, and if he has any hatred at all against Southerners, Catholics or his President, its going to come out. The motive for this libel will be probed extensively, and jurors in Kenton County aren't going to be that merciful IMHO with some liberal doofus taking and sending dick pics all over the place.

They have abused the libel protection from Sullivan versus NY Times and extended it into license to lie. This is good to cause a revisit of that decision.

Jo

This must be some kind of arcane decoder-ring secret but in order to prove "libel" you have to actually provide EVIDENCE OF IT.

That's why a full month ago I challenged anyone on this board that was being led by the nose by McConnell's propaganda machine to demonstrate, right here, any such evidence in print. A quote, a link, a screenshot, whatever. And no one ever has.

I submit to you that it's impossible to make a case that someone has been defamed in the public mind, when even a public full of frothing-at-the-mouth partisan puppets can't come up with a single example in an entire month. No, I'm afraid myths and implications that nobody knows where they came from, aren't admissible as evidence.

This latest action spells out seven specific WaPo articles that it CLAIMS demonstrate such defamation, yet when it proceeds to quote those examples ------------------ not a single one of them does so. Zero. Nothing but eyewitness quotes. You can't argue against quotes. Those are factual. "Philips said (X)." "Photojournalist said (Y)". Those are called facts. They DID say those things.

And NO, Jeff Bezos isn't going to be "deposed" --- Jeff Bezos doesn't write newspaper stories nor is he the Editor. Nor is there anything to explain anyway, as just noted above, because there's no evidence in the complaint.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find anywhere in these cited samples that actually IS a defamation. Quote it here.

Cue crickets.

Y'all have to get it through your heads that not only can anybody make up a lawsuit against anybody for anything (just ask Rump), the purpose for doing so ISN'T always what it says on the lead sheet. It can be and way too often is, a harassment tactic to force another party into legal fees for defense, or to forestall one's own obligations such as not paying workers (again, just ask Rump) or in this case a mass propaganda device for the somnabulistic zombies who think they just "won" something ---- yet can't point to what it is.

WAPO articles are behind a pay wall, so we can't evaluate your claims.

That's why it's handy that they're QUOTED in the legal suit document. Each one.
Again, I already read them. Nothing there. Again, prove me wrong.

Then post it.

It's linked in the OP, Dumb Shit. It's been there the entire time.

Or didn't you bother to read the OP?

 

[bripat9643]

Neither article explains what exactly they are suing the WPost for??? What did the post say that they knew was a lie at the time they reported it? And how has this really hurt the kid with the smirk? Seems like his lawyers want this kid to continue to be in the lime light.... surprised his parents went with this suit that seems to have no grounds or merit for a defamation suit and continues with their son being in the spotlight, with what the kid regrets and wishes he would have walked away from, as was stated in the article??

Me thinks his lawyers are ambulance chasers, or Michael Avenati-ish.

The link to the legal action in the earliest thread spells out seven WaPo articles that the suit claims publish or republish false and defamatory claims about Smirk-Boi "assaulting" Philips, "engaging in racist conduct", "instigating" stuff, and the like, and in each case it quotes from each of the articles cited. Yet in every case (I read them all) no such claim exists. They're mostly quotes from bystanders, from Philips, from a nearby photojournalist covering the Native American ceremony, etc. There's not a single instance of the WaPo making any of those claims at all.

These attorneys are apparently willing to look incompetent for money.

You're totally full of shit. i could post all the defamatory shit the Post published, but that would take up far too much space.

All you need is ONE, Fingerfuck. And you don't have it. The challenge has been out there a FULL MONTH and you remain emptyhanded. Your whining about "waaah, I don't have room to post it" is abjectly full of shit. Put up or shut up.

NOR is it anywhere in the rest of this post:

I urge forum members to go read the lawsuit for themselves. The Post is in big trouble. I predict they will settle for at least $50 million.

On January 19, 20 and 21, the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholas of, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.”

With no investigation into the @2020fight account, the Post actively, negligently, and recklessly participated in making the 2020fight Video go viral on social media when on January 19 at 9:21 a.m., Post reporter Joe Heim re-posted the 2020fight Video.

THE POST COVERAGE

1. The Post rushed to lead the mainstream media to assassinate Nicholas’ character and bully him, publishing their first article no later than 1:37 p.m. January 19. This story was not “hot” or “breaking news.” To the extent the Post performed any investigation at all into what occurred, its unreasonable investigation did not take long, and contrary information did not stop it from publishing its first story in its Sunday newspaper the next day. One of the reporters on the story first retweeted the video approximately four hours before receiving credit for the Post’s first article. In the intervening time, the Post apparently managed to track down and interview Phillips, write a story, and fan the flames of the social media mob into a mainstream media frenzy of false attacks and threats against Nicholas.
2. In the Post’s own words – albeit a far cry from the true scope of the false and defamatory accusations it made against Nicholas – the readers of the Post’s coverage were “licensed to conclude that the students saw [Phillips] from afar, targeted him and advanced.” Of course, the Post’s readers were also licensed to falsely conclude that Nicholas physically and verbally assaulted Phillips while blocking his egress from a mob of students who were similarly engaged in racist conduct.
3. The Post, whose coverage emphasized that Nicholas was wearing a “MAGA” hat, contributed to the rampant cyber-assault and cyber-bullying suffered by Nicholas in the aftermath of its initial reporting which was also undertaken in mass by the mob of other bullies made up of other members of the mainstream media, individuals tweeting on Twitter, church officials, celebrities, and politicians.
4. Even the Twitter platform itself jumped into the bully pulpit and was influenced by early media coverage of the Post, as demonstrated when its “moment” feature falsely accused Nicholas and his classmates of “mocking” Phillips. According to reports, a Twitter spokesperson stated “Twitter Curation strives to fairly and accurately contextualize the nature of large conversations on the platform … The original Covington video appeared on Friday night. However, the Curation team did not compile a Moment until additional news media reporting emerged to provide context to the video – this included a source video interview with Nathan Phillips, which was featured in the Moment.”

WHERE IS IT in there. QUOTE it.

Oh and why don't you essplain to the class how a newspaper, or any source is responsible for what its readers may "conclude"? With all the bullshit conclusion posts you make like a political convention on trolley tracks in December, you'd be in jail for life.

I ALREADY read all this, and more, before I threw down that gauntlet. That's why I don't bother appending a question mark after a sentence I already KNOW has no answer.

I need access to WAPO, and I'm not paying for it. Where is your proof that the Post printed nothing libelous about Sandman? So far, you got nothing. Do you actually believe we're going to take your word for it?

 

[bripat9643]

They have abused the libel protection from Sullivan versus NY Times and extended it into license to lie. This is good to cause a revisit of that decision.

Jo

This must be some kind of arcane decoder-ring secret but in order to prove "libel" you have to actually provide EVIDENCE OF IT.

That's why a full month ago I challenged anyone on this board that was being led by the nose by McConnell's propaganda machine to demonstrate, right here, any such evidence in print. A quote, a link, a screenshot, whatever. And no one ever has.

I submit to you that it's impossible to make a case that someone has been defamed in the public mind, when even a public full of frothing-at-the-mouth partisan puppets can't come up with a single example in an entire month. No, I'm afraid myths and implications that nobody knows where they came from, aren't admissible as evidence.

This latest action spells out seven specific WaPo articles that it CLAIMS demonstrate such defamation, yet when it proceeds to quote those examples ------------------ not a single one of them does so. Zero. Nothing but eyewitness quotes. You can't argue against quotes. Those are factual. "Philips said (X)." "Photojournalist said (Y)". Those are called facts. They DID say those things.

And NO, Jeff Bezos isn't going to be "deposed" --- Jeff Bezos doesn't write newspaper stories nor is he the Editor. Nor is there anything to explain anyway, as just noted above, because there's no evidence in the complaint.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find anywhere in these cited samples that actually IS a defamation. Quote it here.

Cue crickets.

Y'all have to get it through your heads that not only can anybody make up a lawsuit against anybody for anything (just ask Rump), the purpose for doing so ISN'T always what it says on the lead sheet. It can be and way too often is, a harassment tactic to force another party into legal fees for defense, or to forestall one's own obligations such as not paying workers (again, just ask Rump) or in this case a mass propaganda device for the somnabulistic zombies who think they just "won" something ---- yet can't point to what it is.

WAPO articles are behind a pay wall, so we can't evaluate your claims.

That's why it's handy that they're QUOTED in the legal suit document. Each one.
Again, I already read them. Nothing there. Again, prove me wrong.

Then post it.

It's linked in the OP, Dumb Shit. It's been there the entire time.

Or didn't you bother to read the OP?

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

 

[Pogo]

This must be some kind of arcane decoder-ring secret but in order to prove "libel" you have to actually provide EVIDENCE OF IT.

That's why a full month ago I challenged anyone on this board that was being led by the nose by McConnell's propaganda machine to demonstrate, right here, any such evidence in print. A quote, a link, a screenshot, whatever. And no one ever has.

I submit to you that it's impossible to make a case that someone has been defamed in the public mind, when even a public full of frothing-at-the-mouth partisan puppets can't come up with a single example in an entire month. No, I'm afraid myths and implications that nobody knows where they came from, aren't admissible as evidence.

This latest action spells out seven specific WaPo articles that it CLAIMS demonstrate such defamation, yet when it proceeds to quote those examples ------------------ not a single one of them does so. Zero. Nothing but eyewitness quotes. You can't argue against quotes. Those are factual. "Philips said (X)." "Photojournalist said (Y)". Those are called facts. They DID say those things.

And NO, Jeff Bezos isn't going to be "deposed" --- Jeff Bezos doesn't write newspaper stories nor is he the Editor. Nor is there anything to explain anyway, as just noted above, because there's no evidence in the complaint.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Find anywhere in these cited samples that actually IS a defamation. Quote it here.

Cue crickets.

Y'all have to get it through your heads that not only can anybody make up a lawsuit against anybody for anything (just ask Rump), the purpose for doing so ISN'T always what it says on the lead sheet. It can be and way too often is, a harassment tactic to force another party into legal fees for defense, or to forestall one's own obligations such as not paying workers (again, just ask Rump) or in this case a mass propaganda device for the somnabulistic zombies who think they just "won" something ---- yet can't point to what it is.

WAPO articles are behind a pay wall, so we can't evaluate your claims.

That's why it's handy that they're QUOTED in the legal suit document. Each one.
Again, I already read them. Nothing there. Again, prove me wrong.

Then post it.

It's linked in the OP, Dumb Shit. It's been there the entire time.

Or didn't you bother to read the OP?

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

 

[caddo kid]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!




Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

How inconvenient that they STILL have no evidence, huh.

I put that challenge out a MONTH ago and never got a response. Not a single one. Zero.
"Apologize for"................................ what?

From your own link:


>> On January 19, 2019, the Post also posted to its Twitter page and published to approximately 13 million followers its First Article with the following false and defamatory captions, all within a span of 14 minutes, and all within the same thread:

• “In an interview with The Post, Omaha Tribe elder Nathan Phillips says he ‘felt like the spirit was talking through me’ as teens jeered and mocked him.”

• “He was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home. ‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial.’”

• “Phillips, who fought in the Vietnam War, says in an interview ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’” <<

Whelp, guess what. That's a newspaper QUOTING Philips. Is the quote inaccurate? The fact is Philips DID make the statements, he WAS singing a NAm song, and the teens DID jeer and mock him --- "tomahawk chops" are right there in the video.

YOUR OWN LINK, Dumbass. Rotsa ruck with egomaniac attorneys getting their names in print by filing frivolous lawsuits for which they have no evidence. This will be laughed out of court, as it should be.

Wrong! The Post will succumb to MAGA Nick Sandmann and settle. God is on this fine young gentleman's side.

Nick Sandman will prolly die in a traffic accident before he graduates high school

 

[justoffal]

WAPO articles are behind a pay wall, so we can't evaluate your claims.

That's why it's handy that they're QUOTED in the legal suit document. Each one.
Again, I already read them. Nothing there. Again, prove me wrong.

Then post it.

It's linked in the OP, Dumb Shit. It's been there the entire time.

Or didn't you bother to read the OP?

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

Gonna cost them 7 figures...will go straight to the Scotus for sure and is destined to become a landmark case.

This should hit just about the same time Barr begins to bear down on Amazon with trust busting investigators....

Jo

 

[justoffal]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!




Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

How inconvenient that they STILL have no evidence, huh.

I put that challenge out a MONTH ago and never got a response. Not a single one. Zero.
"Apologize for"................................ what?

From your own link:


>> On January 19, 2019, the Post also posted to its Twitter page and published to approximately 13 million followers its First Article with the following false and defamatory captions, all within a span of 14 minutes, and all within the same thread:

• “In an interview with The Post, Omaha Tribe elder Nathan Phillips says he ‘felt like the spirit was talking through me’ as teens jeered and mocked him.”

• “He was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home. ‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial.’”

• “Phillips, who fought in the Vietnam War, says in an interview ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’” <<

Whelp, guess what. That's a newspaper QUOTING Philips. Is the quote inaccurate? The fact is Philips DID make the statements, he WAS singing a NAm song, and the teens DID jeer and mock him --- "tomahawk chops" are right there in the video.

YOUR OWN LINK, Dumbass. Rotsa ruck with egomaniac attorneys getting their names in print by filing frivolous lawsuits for which they have no evidence. This will be laughed out of court, as it should be.

Wrong! The Post will succumb to MAGA Nick Sandmann and settle. God is on this fine young gentleman's side.

Nick Sandman will prolly die in a traffic accident before he graduates high school

Yeah....no shit.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

And he's just beginning! MAGA Nick Sandmanngave them 48 hours to apologize and was met with silence. Oh well, time to crack that whip!




Lawsuit in link.
For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

How inconvenient that they STILL have no evidence, huh.

I put that challenge out a MONTH ago and never got a response. Not a single one. Zero.
"Apologize for"................................ what?

From your own link:


>> On January 19, 2019, the Post also posted to its Twitter page and published to approximately 13 million followers its First Article with the following false and defamatory captions, all within a span of 14 minutes, and all within the same thread:

• “In an interview with The Post, Omaha Tribe elder Nathan Phillips says he ‘felt like the spirit was talking through me’ as teens jeered and mocked him.”

• “He was singing the American Indian Movement song of unity that serves as a ceremony to send the spirits home. ‘It was getting ugly, and I was thinking: ‘I’ve got to find myself an exit out of this situation and finish my song at the Lincoln Memorial.’”

• “Phillips, who fought in the Vietnam War, says in an interview ‘I started going that way, and that guy in the hat stood in my way and we were at an impasse. He just blocked my way and wouldn’t allow me to retreat.’” <<

Whelp, guess what. That's a newspaper QUOTING Philips. Is the quote inaccurate? The fact is Philips DID make the statements, he WAS singing a NAm song, and the teens DID jeer and mock him --- "tomahawk chops" are right there in the video.

YOUR OWN LINK, Dumbass. Rotsa ruck with egomaniac attorneys getting their names in print by filing frivolous lawsuits for which they have no evidence. This will be laughed out of court, as it should be.

Wrong! The Post will succumb to MAGA Nick Sandmann and settle. God is on this fine young gentleman's side.

Nick Sandman will prolly die in a traffic accident before he graduates high school

More likely he'll be the victim of road rage after he smirks at somebody he just jumped in front of.

 

[justoffal]

WAPO articles are behind a pay wall, so we can't evaluate your claims.

That's why it's handy that they're QUOTED in the legal suit document. Each one.
Again, I already read them. Nothing there. Again, prove me wrong.

Then post it.

It's linked in the OP, Dumb Shit. It's been there the entire time.

Or didn't you bother to read the OP?

No, there's a link to the lawsuit. Prove the statements mentioned in the lawsuit weren't made by WAPO.

There is NO NEED TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T made by WaPo. We presume that they WERE made by WaPo.

That's the whole fucking POINT. The suit cites seven (7) articles as "defamatory" -- and cites passages directly from those articles, rendering the WaPo paywall IRRELEVANT, since we have them right in front of us in the court document.

What you have to do then is get your teacher to read you the actual passages they cite.

And when you do that you find out that NOWHERE in ANY of them does any such "defamation" appear. I already did that, and you can too.

=OR= you can find what I somehow didn't find, and post it here.

Get busy. I an't got all week.

Good GODS you're a lazy fuck. No wonder you post wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and try to pass them off as "the Democratic convention".

Well you better get over to the WAPO defense team because they don't seem to be as sure as you are. They need a guy like you
To tell that damn judge there's nothing to see here. Hell they'll probably quit just because you say so!

Jo